Where the problem comes, is when people start using the vice to exploit others - pimps, drug pushers, and loan sharks are the criminals whom vice laws should be meant to stop.

Should the law stop those of age, not operating under disability or forcible compulsion, from entering into business relationships with pimps, drug pushers, and loan sharks? I think not.

The label, "pimp," conjures up unsavory images of men who prey upon damaged women, employ violence to enslave them, and steal the fruits of their labors, along with their liberty and dignity. A very different image arises from the term, "madam'. Yet, both really perform the same services -- marketing, security and business administration. To the extent those who ply the oldest professions perceive benefit to themselves, why not allow them to contract for these services? The sorts of abuses traditionally associated with this sort of agency may be proscribed, without eliminating the craft and infringing on the liberty of those who would sell and those who purchase such services.

Similar considerations apply to "drug pushers," whom I view little differently from pharmacists, and "loan sharks," whose terms, I think, are not significantly different from those of banks offering credit cards. Indeed, loan sharks are often more honest with their marks than are the banks. Again, the most reprehensible aspects of these businesses (e.g., the sale of drugs to children, the use of violence, etc.) may be prohibited without criminalizing the callings.

Is it not somewhat condescending to say to a woman that she's unable to make a sound decision on her employment because she ought to find the prospect of being a prostitute to be degrading? Is it not her body and thus her choice? Nobody is saying women should be forced to do something they don't want to and nobody is saying that illegal street pimps are morally acceptable but if prostitution were to become as normal and accepted of a service as plumbing, for instance, than who are we to tell someone not seek it as their career? Or hell, as their pass-time even.

As a woman, I agree. I've actually blogged about the infantilization of women in sex work by people who feel they can make better choices for women than the individual woman herself.

Unfortunately, while we can dig up art objects and spiritual affects, the bones of ancient people don't tell us whether any of them were working girls or not. Moral of the story: don't try to date a whore?

The Code of Hammurabi (circa 18th century BCE, Mesopotamia) has provisions for protecting women's property rights and specifically mentions prostitutes, the only category of women save widows who had no male family to provide for them. So far as I know, this is the earliest written mention of prostitution, though it's no doubt existed for much longer since it was a part of many early religions' rites and beliefs.

Nowadays, we define prostitution as "exchanging sex for money", but it's really "exchanging sex for money, goods and services". We don't like to think that way, because honestly, that describes pretty much every relationship, but that's the way it is. From the first time a Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon woman realized that she could get necessary things like furs, trinkets and food, if she offered her body up for sex, prostitution has been a part of our history.

There is definitely a difference between relationships and prostitution, in that relationships imply long term fidelity, whereas prostitution is simply a business transaction. A woman who marries a man for his money is also expecting to raise children together with him, and his money will afford a high quality of life for those children. A woman who sells her body expects the man to have nothing to do with her children, and simply for some of his money to become her money to spend as she pleases.

In response to vtboy, everything you describe there is the justification for the change in Ontario laws, and I agree with you. The key difference here is who initiates the business relationship. If a sex worker is self employed and contracts out security and marketing services, she's in control of whom she hires, they negotiate a fair salary or commission, etc. In the unsavory image of pimps, the pimp is extorting the ho with a protection racket identical to how the mafia extorts small businesses. So yeah, extortion laws should cover it.

When I say "drug pusher", I mean something different from a dealer, the difference described well in that well known Steppenwolf song. The crime is the coercion of people into drug addiction so that they'll continue buying. Regulating drugs, as through a pharmacy, eliminates that. A pharmacist can't try to push some prescription pills on you, only a doctor can do that, and we hold doctors to high standards of ethics. Now, one might consider the tobacco industry to be the most egregious drug pusher of them all, certainly in the sense of trying to foster addiction in their customers. But people have already been trying to stop them for a long time now. The will is there, just the political and financial muscle is not.

Difference between a loan shark and a bank is that the bank won't break your legs if you don't pay. But yeah, I get where you're coming from, banks do like to push ruinous credit plans on people. That's a topic for a different debate.

There is definitely a difference between relationships and prostitution, in that relationships imply long term fidelity, whereas prostitution is simply a business transaction. A woman who marries a man for his money is also expecting to raise children together with him, and his money will afford a high quality of life for those children. A woman who sells her body expects the man to have nothing to do with her children, and simply for some of his money to become her money to spend as she pleases.

So all of Hefner's ex's were expecting him to help them raise children?

Or because she wants money so that she can buy expensive clothes and blow it all on drugs.

These can all be reasons women prostitute as well. Trying to draw a line between prostitution / marriage for money / marriage is not so clear cut as they're making it out to be.

That's all part of the 'Security' equation. All those things she can do because she's secure in the knowledge that she will be able to do because of the man's money. If she has to 'put out' once in a while? That's either a necessary evil or a bonus, depending on her view of sex. Another part of the security is that she's with ONE guy. Whom she knows and can trust to be a certain way with her.

Prostitution doesn't afford that luxury, you're on a Russian Roulette there, and you might have to be willing to do some things that you may not want to, to get that money. Which you might not get, or at least not all of what you want or need.

A marriage contract has certain obligations that both sides have to fulfill for a successful binding, and for those who are interested in financial gain (and I mean the seriously overly interested, like the ones we call 'gold diggers') this is their best bet.

Prostitution doesn't afford that luxury, you're on a Russian Roulette there, and you might have to be willing to do some things that you may not want to, to get that money. Which you might not get, or at least not all of what you want or need.

With legalization or decriminalization, the instances of prostitutes absolutely having to do things that they don't want to do should decrease, as they'll have the security of being able to go to the cops if their clients push the line.

With legalization or decriminalization, the instances of prostitutes absolutely having to do things that they don't want to do should decrease, as they'll have the security of being able to go to the cops if their clients push the line.

Which is why I approve of this ruling.

Prostitution will happen. It happens every day in a whole ton of different guises. But at the end of the day, it should be no less safer than a date.

Prostitution will happen. It happens every day in a whole ton of different guises. But at the end of the day, it should be no less safer than a date.

That was pretty much my point - that there's a ton of different guises that 'prostitution' can hide under. Who can say where the line of prostitution ends and begins when I know /plenty/ of women who only have sex with their husband in exchange for goods. I mean... Valentine's Day makes a big joke about it. I just don't think it's that easy to draw a line and saying 'This is prostitution, this is dating, this is marriage, this is something else.'

Though this is a little off topic about the ruling at hand and more to do directly with sexhaver's opinion.

To clarify my opinion, the distinction is a matter of viewing a relationship as a business or as something else. A prostitute is the owner of a small business, and a business necessarily transacts a clear exchange of money for goods or services with multiple customers. A marriage, relationship, or one-night stand is not a business, it's an agreement between two people. If you give your friend a beer for helping you move into a new apartment, can you call yourself a bartender? Granted, most people might call a woman a whore if she was sleeping with a guy because he buys her lots of stuff. But if she's truly a prostitute in the sense of a business, you should be able to go up to her with a wad of cash and negotiate sex with her while her sugar daddy is still standing around.

Some self-employed businesses, such as construction companies, do draw up long term contracts with a single customer at a time. However, these contracts are fixed term, with the intention of negotiating contracts with other customers in the future. Marriage contracts are, in spirit, intended to be permanent, with divorce or annulment seen as an unexpected outcome due to failure of one or both parties to fulfill the contract. To enter such a contract the way one enters a business contract is entirely cynical and counter to the purpose of marriage. Likewise, a business that enters a contract of indefinite length with a single customer (until either the business or its customer cease to exist), and is forbidden from entertaining other customers during that time, would be considered by any government to be not a business at all, but a money laundering or tax evasion scheme.

Regarding informal relationships, they are indeed often entered with the expectation of being short term. But in this case their informal nature separates them from being possibly considered any kind of business. After an abrupt breakup, nobody goes to their ex with a claim that unpaid sex or unpaid gifts are due, to be settled in court. Or at least, those who do that would be considered psychopaths by the rest of us.

Unfortunately there are people who draw up marriage contracts with terms, expecting the relationship to only last a certain period of time and ending with a lump sum payout to, typically, the woman upon divorce.